State v. Paul Mason

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: September 9, 1997
• Docket: 02C01-9611-CC-00404
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON AUGUST SESSION, 1997

FILED PAUL ROBERT MASON, ) September 09, 1997 ) No. 02C01-9611-CC-00404 Appellant ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. ) LAKE COUNTY Appellate C ourt Clerk vs. ) ) Hon. JOE G. RILEY, JR., Judge BILLY COMPTON, WARDEN, ) ) (Writ of Habeas Corpus) Appellee )

For the Appellant: For the Appellee:

PAUL ROBERT MASON, Pro Se CHARLES W. BURSON Register Number 108925 Attorney General and Reporter Rt 1, Box 330 Tiptonville, TN 38079-9775 ELIZABETH T. RYAN Assistant Attorney General Criminal Justice Division 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493

C. PHILLIP BIVENS District Attorney General P. O. Drawer E Dyersburg, TN 38024

OPINION FILED:

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

David G. Hayes Judge OPINION

The appellant, Paul Robert Mason, appeals the trial court's dismissal of

his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. On October 14, 1985, the appellant

pled guilty to one count of aggravated rape in the Maury County Circuit Court

and was sentenced to twenty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department

of Correction. The appellant filed the instant petition on September 20, 1996,

alleging that the judgment entered against him is void because the indictment

failed to allege the mens rea of the offense charged. The trial court properly

dismissed the petition on the basis that "allegations concerning the sufficiency of

the indictment are not the proper subject of habeas corpus relief." See Haggard

v. State, 475 S.W.2d 186, 187 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1971); Brown v. State, 445

S.W.2d 669, 674 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1969); Barber v. State, No. 01C01-9408-CR-

00281 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Feb. 23, 1995). Accordingly, we affirm the

trial court's dismissal of the petition.

Moreover, we find the substance of the appellant's claim to be without

merit. The appellant's reliance upon State v. Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267

(Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, June 20, 1996), is misplaced. The decision in Hill

involves a post-1989 indictment and specifically addresses Tenn. Code Ann. §

39-11-301(c)(1989) (requirement of a culpable mental state). The appeal now

before this court involves a pre 1989 Code indictment. Prior to 1989, the Code

did not contain a provision comparable to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-301(c).

Accordingly, the decision in Hill does not control review of the issue before us.

On the date of this offense, aggravated rape was defined as the "unlawful

sexual penetration of another" accompanied by an enumerated aggravating

circumstance, including that "the victim is less than thirteen years old." Tenn.

Code Ann. § 39-2-603(a)(4)(1982). The indictment in the present case charged

2 that the "[appellant] did unlawfully and feloniously, with force and coercion,

sexually penetrate . . . a ten year old minor child. . . ." This language was

sufficient under the law as it existed at the time. See Campbell v. State, 491

S.W.2d 359, 361 (Tenn. 1973) (an indictment using the words "feloniously" or

"unlawfully" is sufficient). This issue is without merit.

The trial court's dismissal of the appellant's petition for writ of habeas

corpus is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

____________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Judge

CONCUR:

_____________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, Judge

____________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, Judge